The Satanic quality of the Internet

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by u crank

Okay, now I understand, maybe. I should have caught on sooner. This church that you speak of is the one with the funny hats. There is a difference. This church in no way represents millions of Christian believers and it does not represent me. They don't speak for me nor I for them. I know this church as I was born into it but have been a 'protester' for many years. Surely you understand the difference. Some of your criticisms of it I might even agree with.

I do not care what somebody believes in as longas he keeps it in his private closet like I also want people to keep their sexual obessions in their bedrooms - and not posing with the one or the other in public.

Really, Skybird. You believe this? This reasoning, taken to it's logical conclusion can only mean that a person of faith cannot be a moral, reasonable, tolerant and kind being. This is nonsense my friend. Pure atheist dogma. This can be so easily disputed it's not worth talking about.

I am not your friend. And the issue is worth talking about and I cannot see you being able to diuspute about it - you just act like any relgiouzs person, while claiming you do not belong to the club. And in this thread ( and the other thread I have mentioned and linked to above) I mentioned and linked to three different more systematic examinations on the issue on how atheism and religious faith effects the morality and intelligence of people for the worse and the better. And this are just two such examples I linked two - I could quote more but I see no point in drownign you in quotes (that I need to type, btw) from for example Dawkins, or Hitchens. Still, I already lead in explanations and giving reasonbs, while you, as any brave believers always does, just dismiss it as irrelevant and imply that you on your behalf must not explain and answer anything.

edit: just for you, since you have missed them apparently:
link1
link2 (good idea to actually read it to the end before blowing up)
link3
link4

It does not make much of a diffrence then whether you are member of the church, formally, or not.

I think it is you who may be mistaken. If you can in any way infer from my posts the idea that religion or for that matter anyone or anything is above criticism please quote me on it. Far from it I believe that when it comes to free speech everything is on the table. Your version seems to include the destruction of other people's thoughts and ideas that you don't like. I guess you are right. I was never on your side.

Religious dogma is not in the free speech business, that is not its branch. Far the opposite is true, relgious dogma expects acceptance for limiting free speech and reaosnable questions and examinations of dogma. And that's why I do not tolerate it and wants is structures and symbols of power destroyed, becasue the freedom a dogma allows is always a limited freedom only, a freedom peppered with exceptions for dogma, a special status for dogma, and an implicit demand for dominance of dogma over freedom.

Because where there is free thought and free speech and free opinion and freely run analysis, there cannot be dogma. Dogma replaces free speech and free thought and free opinion and freely conducted anaxlsis. That is the very purpose of dogma.

that'S why you must chose. It's either the one or the other, and always totally. You cannot have both.

And this is the reaosn why nothign else in the history og manklind as we can follow it back over the past at least 2.5 thosuand years has caused more violence, hate, intolerqance, supression discrimination, than religions. With the monotheistic three desert dogmas being the worst of all, considering history, and bringing out not the best but the worst in man.

Freedom is the natural enemy of religious dogma, since inj the light ofd freedom dogma cannot survive. That simple it is. And thats why religious dogma has fought against freedom - at all times, and today.

Some summarising but essential readings, all available in English and German as well. Refering to these would save me from the need to always quote from them or referring to them:

link 1 (watch the video there)
link 2
link 3

The first book demasks especially creationist and fundamentalist claims by which they try to infiltrate science and education and erode and compromise them from within, it counters false claims made and religiuous pseudoscience by giving solid scientific arguments to show the many flawed claims and basic thinking errors there. The second book focusses more on the disastrous record of crime, violence and brutality caused by religion in human history, and uses not scientific evidence or theory like Darwin, but logical and reasonable thinking and argument to rip of the mask of religious dogma. Hitchens is more aggressive than Dawkins, but he is so with a mind formed of laserbeams, I sometimes think. The third book does not engage in the battle between religion and atheism at all, but offers a culture-free alternative attitude towards life and existence and does so by reducing all dominant theories, traditions, schools, arts, philosphy, science etc to the lowest common denominator with an accent set on Buddhist models of mind and consciousness, then examines what this lowest common denominator is. This is probably the most friendly of the three books, which should not mean it makes compromises with dogmas, but it also is the most abstract in the beginning, and the most difficult and demanding to read. After the first third, when needed theoretic conceptions and terms have been dealt with and got sufficiently explained and interlinked, the book becomes easier and more comfortable to read.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I do not care what somebody believes in as longas he keeps it in his private closet

You are expressing your beliefs here quite plainly. You are some how above your own rules.

Originally Posted by Skybird

I am not your friend. And the issue is worth talking about and I cannot see you being able to diuspute about it

Your choice. I am disputing it. I'll put it in the form of a question. Can a person of faith be a moral, reasonable, tolerant and kind person? Yes or no. You seem to avoid the most obvious points of a discussion to post links from somewhat biased sources. You may have noticed that I refrain from that. Despite what you think I speak for myself. Can you say the same? Quoting Dawkins and other atheist bishops is not impressing me. You can stop any time. I was an atheist for twenty years. Please don't lecture me on their beliefs.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Religious dogma is not in the free speech business,

Because where there is free thought and free speech and free opinion and freely run analysis, there cannot be dogma. Dogma replaces free speech and free thought and free opinion and freely conducted anaxlsis. That is the very purpose of dogma.

I am not disputing this. But I do know this for certain; there are many forms of belief. Atheism is as dogmatic a belief system as any religion on this planet. I have no problem with that. You can believe or disbelieve whatever you choose. Question is will you afford others the same freedom.

This would suggest otherwise.

Originally Posted by Skybird

And I think that is clear by what I originally said. And what I originally said is not that I do favour the one over the other, but that I despise both. If chruches, mosques and synagogues would get burnt dopwn and Bible Quran and Thora gets destroyed for once and forever, the world woul become a much better, less hateful place.

This thread began on the subject of free speech on the internet and the fear that it might be restricted. I'll go on record to say that I believe in complete freedom of thought, speech and belief, regardless of my own personal belief.

If you, Mr. Skybird can say the same thing we're done.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by u crank

You are expressing your beliefs here quite plainly. You are some how above your own rules.

When i have explained it so much in detail what my "faith", my "belief", my "religion's content" is, then tell me: what is it: What is the relgion I subscribe to, eh, and that I want to impose on you poor haunted victim? You say I explained to you my belief and faith and relgion, so tell me all about me.

I give you a hint: I have none, and I leave the question "why are there things existing, why is there not just nothing?" unanswered, since I know that neither me nor nobody else has an answer to that. A knowledge somebody believes to have, is no knowledge, but 100% belief for sure. Knowledge must not be believed, but known.

Your choice. I am disputing it. I'll put it in the form of a question. Can a person of faith be a moral, reasonable, tolerant and kind person? Yes or no.

He can. But that is not due to his fiath, but despite of faith. The moral one would extract from the Bible, the Quran, the Thora, would make a being that the police usually tries to lock away immediately, as long as he does not defend himself by calling his immorality his "religion".

You seem to avoid the most obvious points of a discussion to post links from somewhat biased sources.

The studies I linked to are sociological-psyhcological studies, and before you call the auniversities behind them as biased becasue you do not like the findings, I demand your methodologically well-fuinded criticism. That is considered good academic tradition, you know.

Dawkins also bases his counter-arguments on scientific answers, espeically Darwinian evolution. To stick wioth a theorty as long as it is not replaced by a better one, or is proven wrong, is not biased, but again: well-estiablished academic method.

I would agree that hitchens is more aggressive in his publications and appearances, but again, he is on the basis of arguemnts and intellectual cleverness that you can either prove false, or you don't.

Nothing of the stuff I linked to, is biased in a meaning of being prejudiced from beginning on. It is basing on substantial matter that you either can counter, or you can't.

You may have noticed that I refrain from that. Despite what you think I speak for myself. Can you say the same? Quoting Dawkins and other atheist bishops is not impressing me. You can stop any time. I was an atheist for twenty years. Please don't lecture me on their beliefs.

Atheists do not have beliefs. They are in dismissal of beliefs - that'S what makes them atheists. Can't you see the absurdity of calling atheists believers?

I am not disputing this. But I do know this for certain; there are many forms of belief. Atheism is as dogmatic a belief system as any religion on this planet.

Evidence, please. This claim is often repted, But until today it is just a claim - and a pretty stupid one.

I have no problem with that. You can believe or disbelieve whatever you choose. Question is will you afford others the same freedom.

If their beleifs demand me to fall back and give them space, accept barbarity and violence, absue and supression of historically unmatched proportions, pay respect to their dogmas motivating these things and excusing them afterwards, then I am afraid I cannot promise that I will. The history of the three theistic desert dogmas is not a friendly or humane one, and I tend to judge them by their records of racism, brutality, genocide, intellectual suppression and mental abuse.

This thread began on the subject of free speech on the internet and the fear that it might be restricted. I'll go on record to say that I believe in complete freedom of thought, speech and belief, regardless of my own personal belief.

No. It began with pointing out that the internet helps in undermining faith'S dogmatism and claims for power (post #1). That was what the article I first linked is about. I further commented on that saying that this is an example for why the freeedom of speech non the web must be defended (#1). But the start made the vulnerability of dogmatism to free internet communication. The brawel now started in ypour post #10 where you took a quote by me out of context and put it into a very different one that twiosted it quite massively. And that was what I took queer. The rest is a consequence of that.

If you, Mr. Skybird can say the same thing we're done.

Does the use of the adress "Mr." mean that you wish to socially distance yourself from me?

Atheists do not have beliefs. They are in dismissal of beliefs - that'S what makes them atheists. Can't you see the absurdity of calling atheists believers?

Yet you believe in invisible writing hidden in treaties and secret conspiracies both in europe and the wider world some of which are frankly more crazily unbelievable than even the kookiest religion, you strongly repeately and very insistantly espouse beliefs that fly in the face of demonstrable fact and hold steadfastly that these beliefs of yours must really be true and should be accepted by others as real.

So does that mean Skybird cannot by his own standards be an atheist?

[P_Funk]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Yet you believe in invisible writing hidden in treaties and secret conspiracies both in europe and the wider world some of which are frankly more crazily unbelievable than even the kookiest religion, you strongly repeately and very insistantly espouse beliefs that fly in the face of demonstrable fact and hold steadfastly that these beliefs of yours must really be true and should be accepted by others as real.

So does that mean Skybird cannot by his own standards be an atheist?

Are you kidding? You're telling me a zombie carpenter of immaculate birth is more plausible than the CIA or the Mafis shot JFK?

What is it they say, people are willing to forgive the big lies more readily than the small ones?

Religion and the church are theoretically two separate things, but how many people hold a faith where they don't ascribe to the beliefs espoused by a particular church? Why do we need pastors and priests and fathers and imams and so on if faith can exist outside the church? Really, how many truly faithful chrsitians don't go to church? How much of modern religion is made up of positive moral attitudes versus the flat statement that to be faithful is to respect the church?

I believe that religion is a result of the rational human being confronting the irrational nature of the world. Why is the internet likely to damage religion? Because the access to knowledge and the open minded education of people always immediately places a rational mind at odds with the fabrications sold to the followers of a faith.

If religion has such value to us then why is it the bastion of narrow mindedness? Why is it that the body of power that must be fought for freeing most of our modern attitudes is usually centred in our old religions?

I'm not going to say that we don't owe a great deal of our identity to the history as it was propelled forward through a christian, jewish, or muslim light. I would not undo the great basilicas that litter Europe or forget the stories of gallant knights and all that. But thats not justification for letting it direct us once we've outgrown it.

The church is a power base. Its no different than Stalinist Russia. Its a means toward control. How much of Christianity is merely a construct devised to absorb control of the major elements of daily life? For centuries in Europe marriage was a tribal rite, something altogether secular, entirely political or perhaps romantic. It was only cneturies after Christ was allegedly crucified that the Church appropriated that institution for itself. Today Christians would have you believe they invented it.

I may admire some religious people, I may respect them as people, but whatever merit religion has is easily outweighed by the terrible toll of human suffering its inflicted in the name of "Faith in God".

I personally much more admire the polytheistic pagan culture of pre-Christ. The greeks were far more interesting in their beliefs. The gods were just like people, filled with emotion, conflicted, great and terrible, an excellent example how religion is borne of the relationship between man's rational mind and the irrational world and our need to make the two meet up. However, the inevitable result of religion is that it centres itself in a powerful institution that seeks to maintain its control with no respect towards even the values that it itself purports to hold majesty over.

Monotheism just gives me a headache.

[MH]

Here is something about monotheism.....there must be something good about the book if religious person can come to such conclusions.
I guess maybe some people look for the wrong things...which always brings the issue back to the man not the religion in many cases...

Also burning synagogues or churches is not very pluralistic i think.

The Torah, based on the core of the teachings of Moses, rejects ancient ideas that had formed the basis of the religions of both Mesopotamia and Egypt. In their place, it substitutes new, revolutionary concepts concerning the understanding of the nature of God, the way in which God is worshiped, the role of the priests, the understanding of the nature and importance of human beings, the specific laws that govern daily life and the structure of society, and the importance of morality as opposed to ritual. Who was responsible for all of that, if not Moses, under divine inspiration? He was a great religious innovator with a broad view of the world and of humankind, and a vision, perhaps too utopian, of what a godly society should be.
The Torah is a revolutionary book that even now, some 3,000 years later, has not lost its radical flavor. It is a document that shattered old myths and formulated social laws, thus revolutionizing the concept of what an ideal human society should be. It was, and remains, one of - if not the - great humanistic documents of all time, freeing us from forces of darkness and foolish beliefs, and revising ancient laws in a liberal and humane fashion.
It teaches that humanity is one, as God is one. That magic and superstition are falsehoods. That humans are responsible for their actions and have the choice to do good or evil. That poverty and deprivation, slavery and hatred are evils that must be eradicated. That the earth is not ours to destroy. That love of others is a divine command.
I know of no other ancient or modern document that is so concerned with the welfare of the needy, with those who have no power. It boldly proclaims that God is their defender and protector. No society has come even close to achieving that vision. A society based on the principles of the Torah would revolutionize the world.
Rabbi Reuven Hammer is a former president of the Rabbinical Assembly of the Conservative/Masorti Movement, and author, most recently, of "The Torah Revolution: Fourteen Truths that Changed The World" (Jewish Lights ).

In my opinion politicized religion is a problem not religion itself because this is when religion becomes a tool not philosophy.
Again im atheist so what do i know....i can listen to Dawkins comedy and pretend that i'm smart though.


..............

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Skybird

When i have explained it so much in detail what my "faith", my "belief", my "religion's content" is, then tell me: what is it: What is the relgion I subscribe to, eh, and that I want to impose on you poor haunted victim? You say I explained to you my belief and faith and relgion, so tell me all about me.

If you reread my last post carefully you will see that I did not say you had a religion. I said " atheism is as dogmatic a belief system as any religion on this planet". And I repeat that you are expressing your beliefs in this system quite plainly. The proof is in the constant dogmatic statements you make about it.

And no I do not need a hint. The bright orange letters in your sig are more than obvious.

Originally Posted by Skybird

He can. But that is not due to his fiath, but despite of faith. The moral one would extract from the Bible, the Quran, the Thora, would make a being that the police usually tries to lock away immediately, as long as he does not defend himself by calling his immorality his "religion".

But despite his faith. Please. How can you make such a bold assumption about anyone else? Or me for that matter. Do you have special powers?

Oh wait I think the police just kicked in the door.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Nothing of the stuff I linked to, is biased in a meaning of being prejudiced from beginning on. It is basing on substantial matter that you either can counter, or you can't.

I challenge you to search any of the posted links, organizations etc a find any kind of opposing viewpoints. If you can I retract my statement. If not they are obviously biased.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Atheists do not have beliefs. They are in dismissal of beliefs - that'S what makes them atheists. Can't you see the absurdity of calling atheists believers?

This is a play on words. I did not call atheists believers. Apparently that's offensive. Atheists have a system of belief, a doctrine, that is well documented. You ascribe to it and believe it to be true. If you think that's absurd it's not my problem.

As to how this all started, let's review.

The first line of your first post: "This is why the freedom of the internet must be defended at all cost against attempts to gag it, to censor it, to control it, to ban it."

I agree with that statement.

My question to you is does this freedom include expressions of belief what ever they may be? Your subsequent statements about burning churches and books makes me question that first line. You need to clear that up in a definite way.
If this freedom of speech that you are defending is conditional then your cause is suspect.

I ended my last post with this:

"This thread began on the subject of free speech on the internet and the fear that it might be restricted. I'll go on record to say that I believe in complete freedom of thought, speech and belief, regardless of my own personal belief."

I ask you if you agree with it. You did not reply.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Does the use of the adress "Mr." mean that you wish to socially distance yourself from me?

No. It is in direct reference to your statement, "I am not your friend" It was an attempt at respect. Sorry if it offends you. I can't help it. My dogmatic belief system requires me to love and respect all the other humans.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by P_Funk

Are you kidding? You're telling me a zombie carpenter of immaculate birth is more plausible than the CIA or the Mafis shot JFK?

What is it they say, people are willing to forgive the big lies more readily than the small ones?

Religion and the church are theoretically two separate things, but how many people hold a faith where they don't ascribe to the beliefs espoused by a particular church? Why do we need pastors and priests and fathers and imams and so on if faith can exist outside the church? Really, how many truly faithful chrsitians don't go to church? How much of modern religion is made up of positive moral attitudes versus the flat statement that to be faithful is to respect the church?

I believe that religion is a result of the rational human being confronting the irrational nature of the world. Why is the internet likely to damage religion? Because the access to knowledge and the open minded education of people always immediately places a rational mind at odds with the fabrications sold to the followers of a faith.

If religion has such value to us then why is it the bastion of narrow mindedness? Why is it that the body of power that must be fought for freeing most of our modern attitudes is usually centred in our old religions?

I'm not going to say that we don't owe a great deal of our identity to the history as it was propelled forward through a christian, jewish, or muslim light. I would not undo the great basilicas that litter Europe or forget the stories of gallant knights and all that. But thats not justification for letting it direct us once we've outgrown it.

The church is a power base. Its no different than Stalinist Russia. Its a means toward control. How much of Christianity is merely a construct devised to absorb control of the major elements of daily life? For centuries in Europe marriage was a tribal rite, something altogether secular, entirely political or perhaps romantic. It was only cneturies after Christ was allegedly crucified that the Church appropriated that institution for itself. Today Christians would have you believe they invented it.

I may admire some religious people, I may respect them as people, but whatever merit religion has is easily outweighed by the terrible toll of human suffering its inflicted in the name of "Faith in God".

I personally much more admire the polytheistic pagan culture of pre-Christ. The greeks were far more interesting in their beliefs. The gods were just like people, filled with emotion, conflicted, great and terrible, an excellent example how religion is borne of the relationship between man's rational mind and the irrational world and our need to make the two meet up. However, the inevitable result of religion is that it centres itself in a powerful institution that seeks to maintain its control with no respect towards even the values that it itself purports to hold majesty over.

Monotheism just gives me a headache.

Two things.

First.

Religiosity, and spirituality. I may not use both terms in their precise verbal meaning as it is rooted the the origin of their languages, as a matter of fact I know for sure that I don't, but that'S why I explain how I use them, and I mjust give the idea behinbd my hijacking of thwem a form in order to verbally communicate. if i would invent new words, I nevertheless would need to explain them. So:

I understand spirituality to be the desire of a mind or consciousness, a living being that is, to answer the question of where it comes from, where it goes, how much time it has left, and why things exist instead of nothing. The big Why?-question, that is. This has an awareness for one's own existence and an understanding of oneself being mortal as a precondition. If you are not aware of yourself, if you do not have an idea of that one day what you consider to be existing will come to an end, inclduing your own existence, then you hardly come to asking these questions. You are driven by automatted insticnts and genetically encoded behaviour patterns instead, like many lower life forms for example. The more self-aware a mind is, the more spiritual in unavoidably is as well. The less self-aware it is, the less spiritual it can be.

Religion is dogma, is cult. The petrifying condensante of earlier rites and habits that got collected and desiogned to secure the power and priviliges of priesthood.Priesthood needs the people being dpeending on priests, else it has no basis for influence and priviliges granted anymore. Thus the discouragement of wanting to know for oneself, demonising secularism, scientiifc analsis, rational and reasionable examination -e specially of dogma. Dogma is not to be analysed, it is to be believed, and exlcusively so. Analsis would rip it apart, always. And dogma knows that! That'S why it is so hostile to intellectual analysis, scientific approach in examination claims made by dogma.

I am antireligious, nevertheless I am spiritual, and certainly I am atheist.

Second.

Why is man obviously so vulnerable to the desire of believing in relgions'S claims? The vast majroity of mankind walks into this trap. Why? The answer may be quite ironic both for believers and atheists, if they have some sense of humour left, though I think in general believers are seriously handicapped there. The vulnerability for wanting to believe in a metaphsiacal entity, justice, eye in the sky - probably is due evolution. I have read a good comparison that illustrates it, but I need to give a longer explanation to make the point clear.

The author talked about moths, and how they fly into open flames, killing themselves. This is a function of their behaviour that bases on a design process that has been formed by evolution, that is adaptation of moths to the world they live in since many hundreds of thosuands of years, giviong them the best design and set of features that in the time passed so far was possible to form up in the attanmpt to adapt better and better to the environment. Because they navigate, like many insects, by the sun, the moon, and also even by very bright stars, they watch them with their eyes - facette eyes. How are they constructed? Facette eyes (at least that is how they are called in German) are foprmed by a huge number of tubes of a slightly pyramidic shape, the inne rending bedeing narrow and the outer ending being wider. If you collect a huge amount of such tiny itenms, the outside forms the form of a spohere - the visible part of the insect'S eye. The eye then fixiates for example the moon, but the moon is visible only to a very small part of the many tunnels the eye is formed of, becasue the light needs to travel in a more or less straight line from the opoening down the tunnel to its inner ending. Its like fixiating an object through a straight, tube. Now if you look at the moon through such a tube it does not matter how far you run, a mile or a hundred miles, becasue the moon is so far away that yiour moevment doesn'T matter - you always have it at the same relative angle to your position (ignoring stellar movement for a moment...) But if you fixiate an objct, say a waste bin standing on the pavement, you need to turn your head when you change your position, because the object is so near that the change in relative position changes the angle from all beginning on. Same for the moth. It'S "viewing tunnel" (the facette in its eyes fixiating a light blip) gets fixiated not on the moon, but on a candle light. But the candle light is not 380 thousand kilometers away, but just two meters - the smallest movement of the moth chnages the facettes, the angle, chnages the way it sees it. But evoltuioin has dersigned it to fly a poath and navigate by keeping always the same facettes of its eyes fixiated on the - far far awar - light source. The candle light isnt, and so the moth has to fly a turn, a slight turn, to keep the same part of its eyes fixiated on the light source. It flies a spiral, and finall finds the spiral'S center - and it goes up in flames.

The author compares this to the vulnerablity of man for the authority of religious dogma. Evolution has sown our species by experience that it is wise if our young chiodren do not question the elder, but obey their warnings and orders. It may savbe their life if they get a snap at not to touch that poisenous snake, or to freeze in place with that leopard close by. Everybody having children knows that little children even tend to obey the authority of foreigners that give them an order. Often they are following these rules more willingkly, though intimidates, than orders by their parents! I have often witnessed that when visiting good friend of mine who have two little children. From a standpoint of evolutional adaptation, this make sense, obviously - else it would not have formed up in the first, and probably would have been altered.

Now comes Mr and Mrs priest and raise demands for being priviliged and they make claism and take an authoritarian pose. What do people do, esoeially the young ones whose minds are soft and unhardened, unexperienced and still klacking the independence to really think by themselves and form their own judgements, critically and distanced to expectations dircted at them? They believe them! What a surprise. And this also explains why relgion'S try to get influence over people'S minds even from cradle on. Once childhood is over, it ios so muczh more difficult to make peoplke submitting to dogma, and turnt hem into beloevers, since as adults their minds are stronger and more critical - at least that is to be hoped, isn't it. The probability to bind young minds to a religion is so much greater than the probability to turn adults who had grown up without being exposed to priesthoods and dogmas into converts.

So, when I say that evolution may be the reason of man's interest in falling for dogmas and beliefs, this does not necessarily mean that evoltuion wanted this effect tobe acchieved, like it also did not deisng moths to fly into open fire. Both are unwanted side effects that become a problem just short time ago, due to to new environmental factor arising that appeared just so short ago that evolution still had not time to alter the design over these new features, becasue this is a pricess that consumes a certainb ammount of time, and the adaptation thus always takes place with a delay.

Our vulnerability for religious - institutionalised, that is - authorities and dogmas thus is a sign of a still non-efficient, uncompleted adaptation process to these relatively new environmental factor. We are still little kids liostening to what the elder are telling them - that's it in a nutshell. Here is hope that once our evolution has progressed, we simply will have moved beyond this religious hokuspocus. The desire to find answers of the existential, metaphysical variety (the Why qustions I mentioned in the beginning), mjust not be effected by this, but could benefit from spirituality emancipaing itself from religiosity and relgious cult. I think that if we manage to survive beyond the next dercades and centuries, our relgions icnreaisngly will become more a culture of admiring the beuaty and evolutionary process that are laid before our eyes, and scientific reasonbiltiy and rational sanity will defeat superstitious hear-say and authoritarian dogmatic cult celebrated on the graves of millions and millions of innocent victims.

[MH]

Wow....evolution as contra argument to religion.
I think its time to move on...you are stuck and of course some religious preachers.
Common even the genesis reads sort of evolutionary...yet simplified

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by u crank

If you reread my last post carefully you will see that I did not say you had a religion. I said " atheism is as dogmatic a belief system as any religion on this planet". And I repeat that you are expressing your beliefs in this system quite plainly. The proof is in the constant dogmatic statements you make about it.

And no I do not need a hint. The bright orange letters in your sig are more than obvious.

Yes, certain people may have a problem with that line. That'S why I set it up.

But despite his faith. Please. How can you make such a bold assumption about anyone else? Or me for that matter. Do you have special powers?

My only spoecial power I am aware of is my brain, and I intend to insist on the freedom to use it. I prefer to look at moral people being kind and ethical becasue that is a self-purpose, and imo even comes quite natrually all by itself if people are left unattacked by relgious domgas and fundamentalists. If they are moralistic only due to being afraid of god'S punishement or hellfire, then I am tempted to bet one penny on their morality. And the holy scriptures surely do not propaose an ideal exmaple of how a moral person or how ethical behaviour should look like. Quran, old and new testament alike are dripping of blood and stories on attack, war, calls for submission and obeidence,k racism, hate on women and their supression. The only few sane parts are in the preachings by Jesuus - but even there you find hints on that Jesus was anything but a actiividst onm behalf of women's rights. Then there are the many people, especially Paul, who distorted the words of Jesus, and oretty much added oil to the fire of corrupting relgion to benefit from that by winning more authority themselves. Is the semron on the mount reasonable? Of course it is, but there you have it: it is a quite naturally reasonable list of thoughts that not just the son of a god but any person with s sane mind could show up with - and as a matter of fact has shown up with time and again. Why this fixiation on this single man back then of whom we even cannot say for sure that he even ever existed, not to mention that the reprtts about him are highly subjective, selective, lack at least twice as many other gospels beside the four or five that had been chosen(!) to base on, the many contradictions between the four existing gospels, and the many people who since then and already in their creaiton have messed around with these gospels, amnipulatd, changed and distorted them! I respect some of what Jesus said - and for toher what he said I think he deserve a kick in the lower bottom and I am absolutely not sure that I would share a glass of beer with him, if he would finally fall down from heaven again. A couple of reasonable worlds alone don't make you already a saint, if you forgive the wordplay.

Oh wait I think the police just kicked in the door.

I challenge you to search any of the posted links, organizations etc a find any kind of opposing viewpoints. If you can I retract my statement. If not they are obviously biased.

I think since it is your claim they are biased it is your job and duty to give evidence for your claims. Your elgious people play thius part of the bgame always very clever, always demanding more unbiased info, and when it nis given, youj ignore it and claim just more. Of course you have never to show up with substantial material that could be analysed and examined yourself, since it is belief and faith you are about, and this just needs to be believed, it must not been proven, and it should not be analysed at all, since it would not stand the tests of reasonabilty.

That'S what makes relgious piety such an annoyance, I assume.

Anyway, there are some experimental studies (there are also more), and some books I referred to. Yopu want to disagree with them but ask ME to deliver you arguments for that position - and if I do not help ypou to think and form a stand by yourself, then I or these authors are "biased" ? Well, that is modern political correctness in action, if you give one argment, you also have to give the counterargument by yourslef, else your original argument is biased.

Not with me. I fear you have to explain your disagreeing with that material by yourself. I play for the other team, if you haven'T noticed.

This is a play on words. I did not call atheists believers.

Belief - believers, what is so difficult to see the link there...

Apparently that's offensive. Atheists have a system of belief, a doctrine, that is well documented.

Oh, is it? And there was me, always failing to see any such "well-documented" atheistic system of belief. Okay, I take the bait: show me the evidence that you've got, what is atheistic doctrine, what is the atheistic belief system?

I say atheism is nothing more than the absence of any theistic belief system and the rejection of any such doctrine.

Oh, wait, I have one "doctrine" indeed. That is Kant's Golden Rule. And my tolerance ends where my behaviour basing on it is not answered with according reciprocity - thats why I am hostile to the three desert religions and their institutions, priests, cults, temples.

So, and now I start to get tired of it all. Next time you quote me, quote me correctly - that would save me plenty of time.

[P_Funk]

@Skybird

Indeed I don't believe that spirituality need die in association with religion. I feel that there is an inherent truth to much spritual thinking, insofar as it pertains to the concept of perception and insight. In that sense the rational self aware atheist can easily call himself spiritual without sacrificing any of his good sense.

Also, I agree about the notion that our susceptibility towards this dogmatic thinking likely is a function of evolution. I however am apt to think this is all a byproduct of the evolution of the rational self aware mind and it being at odds with the pre-existing primal survival instinct, the one that tends towards conformism at the cost of the individual in favor of the group.

I think of self awareness like its some unfavorable mutation that has yet to find its equilibrium. Really it'd be so much better if we just could shut up and get on with the currents.

Really though its a very curious mutation. To be self aware and capable of essentially reaching a point of defining so much of what we are is both freeing and powerful but also entirely depending on so many factors that its a much messier way to be. Those that conform to the more dogmatic mindset obviously are the backbone of our species still, basically forming the survival-buoyancy necessary for us 'dreamers' to strive towards self improvement and expand our self awareness. What does a poet add to the human race that is substantially more valuable to survival that is not utterly eclipsed by the simple mundane product of the farmer? The insight into self in not necessary for the farmer to buoy the human race's continued existence, but the failure of the Poet has much less impact compared to the failure of the farmer. Yet you must turn around and say if there are no poets why bother farming? Where do we go from there? Even the most mundane of thinkers fully inculcated into the dogma of narrow conformism is in some way motivated by that essential desire for more than just survival.

So it comes to me the fact that those two elements of humanity, the animal; the survivor, and the thinker; the self aware creature, don't function as a whole the way most elements of a creature's evolutionary package do. Mostly one finds a tail bone, the vestigial marker of a previous form, yet this is hardly at odds with the new evolutionary form.

Basically, I think neurosis is the manifestation of the essential dysfucntional nature of our bizarre evolutionary model. More than any other creature we struggle to find our equilibrium. Other creatures struggle with surviving the elements and the biosphere, we struggle with surviving the argument over our own true nature.

Or, to be coy, I believe that answer to the meaning of life is that we're just a well and truly f**ked up evolutionary mistake.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by MH

Wow....evolution as contra argument to religion.

What is so surprising there?

Evolution says the cosmos moves from simplicty (actually: nothingness) to complexity.

The Bible says complexity, intelligence, design has been there from all beginning on, it does not matter whether you have a creationist's view or subscribe to the idea of the blind watchmaker. In both cases, complexity has been there from all beginning on: in creation, and in form of it's creator.

Both concepts cannot be more antagonistic to each other!

Wilber gave a title to the book I linked, that is a formula representing evolution as well, the title in English is "Sex-Ecology-Spirituality", which the German publisher translated I think much better: "Eros-Kosmos-Logos". To speak it out: from Eros over Kosmos to final Logos. Complexity unfolding.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by u crank

atheism is as dogmatic a belief system as any religion on this planet

The mistake you make here is that atheists are as widely varied as believers. True, some atheists are indeed dogmatic and devoutly believe there is no God. By-and-large they accept what others tell them without thinking, just like everybody else. Some, on the other hand, rationally analyze all the available data and come to the conclusion that there is no supportable evidence for the existence of any higher being. That is not belief, not dogma, but reason. I have yet to find a believer who can show any such evidence. That is the difference.

And yet, because I continually doubt my own judgement, I still don't consider myself an atheist.

[MH]

Simplicity...that no one really can wrap a mind around to complexity that blows the mind too.
All we really know is the basic laws and theorise about the rest to make sense of it all

I think that since still leaves a lot of space for religion and will long time to come.



.............

[Skybird]

@Skybird

Indeed I don't believe that spirituality need die in association with religion. I feel that there is an inherent truth to much spritual thinking, insofar as it pertains to the concept of perception and insight. In that sense the rational self aware atheist can easily call himself spiritual without sacrificing any of his good sense.

Sounds like you wish to give a reference to Buddhist concepts of human mind, or is that by coincidence only?! Buddhism is atheistic and imo not even a religion like the others more an attitude towards life and how to live it, and nthat again has much in common with what Kant said in the Golden Rule. Now, a confessing Christian or Jew or Muslim can live in accordance with the golden Rule, yes. I never denied that. What IU deny is that the Golden Rule and the morals that give skin and flesh to it derive from any of the three desert dogma and their scriptures. Ol' jahwe, the God of the old testemant and much of the new, Allah, they all are not that pleasant and kind at all. They make humans like Stalin or Tamerlan, Hitler or Saddam look like liberal, humanistic amateurs in the business of how to terrorise mankind, or the indovodual hero in a given story as well. Fathers told to buthcer their sons, leaders being told to conmquer that forign land and wipe out every triobe living there, not saving anyone, all life on earth being exterminated due to some animosity God had for the behaviour of his creature that he had designed by his own image, and time an again the displays of extreme hostility against women, and disrespect for their existence: stories on men preferring to hand over their daughters to a mob for gang rapes over sending away foreigners under their roof who - by chance I'm sure! - all happen to be precious males... Lovely book. Puts all authors of war and crime novels to shame. If God is perfect, and created us by his image, why do we fail and get punished by him then? Is god not poerfect then? Or is he just a sadist misdesigning us intentionally so that he can have his fun with us when punishing us for being what he made us to be?

Also, I agree about the notion that our susceptibility towards this dogmatic thinking likely is a function of evolution. I however am apt to think this is all a byproduct of the evolution of the rational self aware mind and it being at odds with the pre-existing primal survival instinct, the one that tends towards conformism at the cost of the individual in favor of the group.

You say vulnerability to religious dogma/authority is a byproduct of the evolution of self-aware mind. A categorical adaptation mismatch, you mean? How does that work exactly? The argument I gave in my explanation of the term spirituality over religion (some posts above), as well as the example on the moth and how that may serve as an example of human children's behaviour serving a survival task but making them vulnerable to religious authority, would argue differently.

I think of self awareness like its some unfavorable mutation that has yet to find its equilibrium. Really it'd be so much better if we just could shut up and get on with the currents.

Why do you think so? And what do you say to the apparent trend for increasing complexity we see in evolution of life on earth, and in physical, chemical, ecological, astronomical systems as well? In the models on how matter aggregades to form solar systems, to observations of how an individual life form gets formed up after fertilzation, or the evolutionary design of the race'S characteristc features? I would say the trend from simplicty to complexity is almost omnipresent where life and existence unfolds - and it is reverse were it dies. When a life form dies, the higher and more complex functions of the body die first, the basic, vital ones late. When an eco system collapse, the more advanced lifeforms in the hierarchy are threatened first, the rudimentary, simple forms hold out the longest time.

I cannot prove it, but by how I see things in the universe moving I think evolution means a trend from simplicity to increasing complexity, and that the universe by this process in the end becomes more and more aware of itself. Developing mind (in a wide meaning of the word and surpassing the limited reference to man and his intellect) maybe is the real drive. But that is just a subjective opinion of mine.

Really though its a very curious mutation. To be self aware and capable of essentially reaching a point of defining so much of what we are is both freeing and powerful but also entirely depending on so many factors that its a much messier way to be.

You are a candidate for Wilber'S model of "holon hierarchies". It includes this basic principle, that the construction of systems of higher complexities always come at the price of forming new problems that on lower levels of complexity did not exist. The solution of problems emerging on a given complexity level leads the system to transformation where the solution gets realised, a structure of higher order and complexity forms up, where the problems of the level before can be solved and have been solved - but new problems emerged.

Romanticising a bit here, couldn'T this also be seen as a drive and motor of evolution?

Those that conform to the more dogmatic mindset obviously are the backbone of our species still, basically forming the survival-buoyancy necessary for us 'dreamers' to strive towards self improvement and expand our self awareness. What does a poet add to the human race that is substantially more valuable to survival that is not utterly eclipsed by the simple mundane product of the farmer? The insight into self in

Well, the Darwinian model would claim that no features exist for whose existence there have not been a good reason. Poetry may be a sideeffect of another evolutionary feature design, but we cannot be sure that it is this way, or any other way. Maybe it is a by-product of our intellect unfolding that enabled us instrumentally to master our environment. Maybe it serves a deeper function in itself. However, good poetry, music, arts, are a pleasurable and satisfying experiences - experiences without which life for a horse or a dog may not be different, but for us is makes a difference. Or wouldn'T you miss it? With our level or self-reflection and self-awerness, there can be more than just feeding the physical body. I would even say: there must be more.

not necessary for the farmer to buoy the human race's continued existence, but the failure of the Poet has much less impact compared to the failure of the farmer. Yet you must turn around and say if there are no poets why bother farming? Where do we go from there? Even the most mundane of thinkers fully inculcated into the dogma of narrow conformism is in some way motivated by that essential desire for more than just survival.

So it comes to me the fact that those two elements of humanity, the animal; the survivor, and the thinker; the self aware creature, don't function as a whole the way most elements of a creature's evolutionary package do. Mostly one finds a tail bone, the vestigial marker of a previous form, yet this is hardly at odds with the new evolutionary form.

As I indicatd I tend to think that mind is a higher goal of evolution than just physical life, the latter is just a necessary fundament for the first, maybe. Seen that way I cannot follow you when you differ between farmer-necessary, poet-not necessary for survival. I must admit I fail to see the conflict you describe, but that is because I think evoltution aims at something higher than just biological life. And I wonder if there is a cap, an upper limit to what evolution of the universe is going for. I don'T think so, and if there is such a limit, then we probably cannot imagine it, because it is too high above our current level. The wannabe-novelist in me just voiced his idea that maybe life/we are aiming at finally turning into god. I admit that queer thought makes me giggle.

Basically, I think neurosis is the manifestation of the essential dysfucntional nature of our bizarre evolutionary model. More than any other creature we struggle to find our equilibrium. Other creatures struggle with surviving the elements and the biosphere, we struggle with surviving the argument over our own true nature.

Wowh, and people call me a pessimist! I think our evolutionary design is like it is becasue until here it worked pretty well. Maybe it is not poerfect, yes. Maybe a shark is more perfect in being a shark, and indeed he is a marvellous design. I admire it absolutely. But a shark also is what he is, and that is a relativley low life form, that has not changed since how long it was? 7 million years? I do not remember, but it was a damn long time, I'm sure A shark cannot manipulate his environment, cannot leave his element, cannot reflect about himself, and when a new meteor hits Earth and kills all life on it, then he will suffer what he must becasue he has not the intellect to try finding ways to escape. Needless to say, sharks also do not write poetry, since we have been there two paragraphs earlier. The develoepment line of sharks gives the imporession to be somewhat the end product of that line. It will not go any further from there. We have the freedom to allow that - we have a choice,m we can chose for self-destruction, or for adaptation and adressing factors vital for our world'S future. A shark does not do that.

And the ultimate differences: we can choose to care for the interests of sharks, and other animals. while I do not know a single animal developed enough to make the same stand regarding us. And second, we can leave our environmental habitat to some degree. Technology is our way to transcend the limits of our biological design. It is a two-sided sword, I admit. We can spell disaster by abusing it, we can do marvellous things with it if we become wise enough. Anyhow, I more and more believe that technology is part of human evolution, in the meaning of enabling man to expand the limits of his biologial design. And that is what really sets us apart from any other life form on this planet.

As I said in the holon-hierarchy model, each level of complexity has cures for problems of earlier stages, but introduces new problems as well. that we can be overwhelemed by the problems of your developement stage should not make us doubt that we are on a higher complexity level than a shark nevertheless.

Or, to be coy, I believe that answer to the meaning of life is that we're just a well and truly f**ked up evolutionary mistake.

Answer rejected. Too simple.